I don't think people are ready for the amount of work AI agents are going to be creating for real humans. We're effectively putting the tools of mass spammers in the hands of everyone and it's going to be incredibly frustrating for all involved. "If it takes me 30 seconds to fire off a prompt that has potential to benefit me it's worth it regardless of the 2 minutes of work it creates for a dozen people" scaled to all of society.
> "If it takes me 30 seconds to fire off a prompt that has potential to benefit me it's worth it regardless of the 2 minutes of work it creates for a dozen people" scaled to all of society.
People love this stuff if it benefits them. It even gets cheered on when the receiving end can be reduced to something disliked, like a big corporation or a bureaucracy.
There was a startup that would fight traffic and parking tickets for you and everyone loved the idea. Until, that is, you realize that the company is doing automated requests to jam up your local government systems with extra work. The ticketing agents and government workers who have to put in extra time on these cases don't really care because it's no different than any other work. In some cases they might be able to get some overtime.
The real losers are people who have legitimate complaints who get backlogged behind a thousand automated requests from people who asked ChatGPT to try to fight something for them.
Then later, we all lose when the only way to contest things is to go to a physical location in person and prove that it's you trying to do it, not the bot.
Already seeing this with job applications, too: Apply for a job and you'll be mixed in with 1000 automated submissions. Do the interview remotely and they'll be wondering if you're cheating. Now you have to fly on site for middle interview stages to prove that it's you, not a bot, who can answer the questions.
Just talking to some InfoSec guys at a party on Saturday at noon, they couldn't drink because they were headed back into work. It's not just PHP, it's everything. They were "joking" about changing professions, because it sucks and it's getting worse. They can't even use frontier models, just use open weights to not get degraded.
Definitely. There are still some areas of the internet with high enough signal to noise ratio, but many areas of the internet I just don't go now (pretty much anywhere remotely mainstream that is valuable to monetize attention and not heavily curated against it) because I just feel my self being manipulated the entire time and its mostly anger and frustration they use to activate a response from you.
the pillaging will continue to wherever people go. the only reason we can avoid it is because others are sacrificing by being subject to it.
no one answers their phone now, and as such legitimate businesses rarely do cold calls as a main lead. they find you online instead. they buy data to figure out your email and habits. etc.
once the public internet becomes unbearable they will adapt. i dont know how and if i did i wouldnt give them the idea without working for it, but all the effort put into manipulating social media sites will absoutely go somewhere else once those sites dry up from real human signals
I've had this exact experience a few times now on Reddit where I see a viral video and people point out that it's AI, and I don't always realize it right away. It's just not worth consuming content anymore that I don't feel confident about the provenance of.
So much of the front page was ragebait before AI, but ragebait that could be AI-generated is a hard nope for me.
I deleted my Reddit account when they killed 3rd party apps. I have no social media except Reddit and HN. My excuse for keeping Reddit was that the content was good, if you just curated your subs.
After killing it, and never going back to that site since, I can tell you that it gets your blood pressure up. Before chatbots, most popular content, even in the better subreddits were, essentially, ragebait.
Do your blood pressure a favor and stop going to reddit. HN is okay because it's slower paced and, typically, ragebait is discouraged here.
I see a future where AI is banned to avoid that situation. If AI creates too much work and ends reducing advanced countries output then something will need to be done.
Individually, AI helps me to be more productive. But, as you point out, at society level makes everybody less productive. So, I have no incentive to stop. Nobody has. Only if we all agree to stop using it then it works. A tragedy of the commons problem.
I think this is a lot more likely than people realize, but some won't like the execution on this.
It's either a vague blanket "ban on AI" that wraps up all dev work in red tape, or it's shutting down specific businesses like OpenAI and Anthropic while letting Google and Microsoft continue to dominate.
I don't think "bans don't work" is the correct take-away from the USA's "war on drugs".
Maybe it would be fair to say "you can't just ban something." For example, tobacco-sales are restricted to minors in the US. And smoking among minors did drop sharply (until vapes came along). There were several controls used: outlawing sales, raising overall prices (so that teens generally couldn't afford to smoke), education campaigns, and making smoking more difficult in general.
In contrast, the War on Drugs mostly involved incarcerating vulnerable drug-users. Some similarities to the current war on immigrants.
I think a tobacco-style attempt to ban AI would look like:
- A large electricity surcharge to inference-providers, who would pass the cost to customers, making AI far more expensive. Maybe it would be worthwhile to drop $10M/year on code-assistance or slide-deck clip-art, but not for an individual to ask how to restore their Instagram account.
- An education program telling people that they sound cringe when they write in AI voice, and which contexts it's appropriate/inappropriate to do that. (Don't AI your wedding vows.)
- Certain types of harm would be the responsibility of the provider. Maybe if the AI medical assistant fills out the form incorrectly then the provider is liable for the malpractice suit. Or if it tells a teen to kill themselves the provider is liable for wrongful-death. These would likely result in the provider trying to cut off access to any of the groups where they couldn't shift liability.
But how does a true AI ban actually look in practice? The open weight models are out there, the hardware is out there. Spamming is already illegal but so commonplace that it's pretty laughably enforced at this point. Even really heinous stuff in the dark corners of the web still finds its way into the hands of users, I don't see how AI is any different in this regard.
> Spamming is already illegal but so commonplace that it's pretty laughably enforced at this point
I see comments similar to this about tech issues, and it always reads as if the person is assuming that these illegal tech activities are being done under the jurisdiction of the laws making it illegal. All you need is one jurisdiction that is not under the influence of the country with laws, and you make it impossible to stop these "illegal" activities
A true [AI as-we-know-it-today] ban would require author consent on all materials added to a model, resulting in royalty payments (btw, I believe that’s how it should have been done from the start).
Except most people aren't mass spammers, and most people aren't actually heard most of the time, and most of our systems are actually set up to make sure this continues to be the case.
How about AI will show us where we are intentionally underfunding things we have promised people?
On the upside, maybe some people will realize just how much trash we already were swimming in before it became economical to produce.
Like, if you pay attention to American politician bribery scandals, I think most people come to the conclusion: how fucking cheap are American politicians? They'll take a fucking hamburger to screw over their constituents.
I'm applying for jobs right now all of them requires some sort of AI-familiarity.
Now I am being spammed with "AI-assessments" which are actually attempts to steal time/effort and train ai agents. This industry is infuriatingly stupid.
All the spam this generates probably sucks for 404 Media, but the underlying problem is that ChatGPT is right. If you have any kind of problem with these overgrown, understaffed companies, your only chance is to get media attention.
Apple famously put "if you run to the press and trash us, it never helps" into their App Store Guidelines for developers, but the only reason they did have to do that is because it's a lie. Running to the press is the only thing that helps, which is why people do it.
Basically every large company has gone all in on AI, and as a result the number of bots has (likely, I have no proof) exploded. Then as a result of that, they crack down on "potential bots" by banning them. Of course, all they care about is what % of bots they cracked down on now what % of real people. Then because they've gone all in on AI, you can't get an actual human to help you... just a bot they trained to always say no.
My current experiences in these arena:
- Opened a Meta for Business account to try and buy ads. Immediate lifetime ban before taking even a single action. Most likely thing that looks like a bot? Opening a new account.
- Got bot farmed on a Google Ads campaign, delivered definitive proof of it to Google. Never got a real human, just went back and forth with a bot who was told to acknowledge everything I said without admitting fault. End result - no refund, the bot farm still operates, and I have to be super careful when buying Google Ads.
- Tried to open an account to post stuff on Reddit, every post gets instantly banned because I don't have enough karma. Try to start posting comments to get karma, same thing. IN fairness, this did eventually start to work - where I could post on certain subreddits and comment in others.
Overall the experience always has the same shape - something super opaque to the end user, no resolution options, and really you are left with no alternatives because every big tech firm is doing this.
So then the same AIs that create the problem recommend you try and get media articles published about it to draw attention to the plights of the real human caused by AI bots.
ChatGPT is right, the only chance you have to get human attention from these companies is something like this. Go viral, get in the news. Maybe you could sue them if you had the money and time.
This is just sad. Just because these businesses don't charge you a fee doesn't mean there* shouldn't be customer support. An Instagram account can be someone's occupation these days.
The gig companies that are _directly_ people's occupation are the same way. Support actually emphasizes that they cannot actually do anything every time I call them. They actually say those words.
Capitalism cannot solve this problem. If I can get free support for my business why shouldn't I?
There was a time that reputation damage could counter valance that. But, nowadays, what the average working calls thinks does not matter because money is not on their side. Most money is in the super-rich pockets, and they are the ones that profit from abusing society. Until that is solved, I see a painful future for any people willing to give their own time for free.
So can vandalizing public property. which is apparently how big tech companies feel when you try to enjoy yourself on the platform instead of simply consuming their slop.
StackOverflow had this problem, too; various large companies would put "for support, ask on StackOverflow!" style wording in place, with predictable results.
At pre-AI scale, StackOverflow was largely able to handle this traffic-flow. It was a bit frustrating for everyone, but that was kind of the norm on SO. Ultimately, a lot of support questions did get answered and the AIs trained on that, so when it's not telling you to email journalists you can thank SO for the tech support ChatGPT gives.
Just a euphemism for "we have no customer support". In fairness, it's a more helpful suggestion than just a customer support stonewall.
Some companies had employees monitor their company's Stack Overflow tag. I think Stripe did that. I probably benefited from that at least a few times, which, in those moments of need, would have been quite helpful.
Random people that you're expecting to look stuff up for you aren't customer support; they're comparable to 404 Media, except they don't even make a living from views. They're simply random people that you're taking advantage of.
People linked you to lmgtfy because they were saying you were lazy or stupid, not because they weren't going to support their products. They hadn't sold you anything.
I don't see the author complaining about it, instead he thought it was an interesting story. So I guess he already did that.
I have my business email read first by an LLM, I imagine someone who works at a tech-oriented website does too so those emails are basically filtered into a pile anyway.
People love this stuff if it benefits them. It even gets cheered on when the receiving end can be reduced to something disliked, like a big corporation or a bureaucracy.
There was a startup that would fight traffic and parking tickets for you and everyone loved the idea. Until, that is, you realize that the company is doing automated requests to jam up your local government systems with extra work. The ticketing agents and government workers who have to put in extra time on these cases don't really care because it's no different than any other work. In some cases they might be able to get some overtime.
The real losers are people who have legitimate complaints who get backlogged behind a thousand automated requests from people who asked ChatGPT to try to fight something for them.
Then later, we all lose when the only way to contest things is to go to a physical location in person and prove that it's you trying to do it, not the bot.
Already seeing this with job applications, too: Apply for a job and you'll be mixed in with 1000 automated submissions. Do the interview remotely and they'll be wondering if you're cheating. Now you have to fly on site for middle interview stages to prove that it's you, not a bot, who can answer the questions.
The same thing might happen to the entire internet.
no one answers their phone now, and as such legitimate businesses rarely do cold calls as a main lead. they find you online instead. they buy data to figure out your email and habits. etc.
once the public internet becomes unbearable they will adapt. i dont know how and if i did i wouldnt give them the idea without working for it, but all the effort put into manipulating social media sites will absoutely go somewhere else once those sites dry up from real human signals
So much of the front page was ragebait before AI, but ragebait that could be AI-generated is a hard nope for me.
After killing it, and never going back to that site since, I can tell you that it gets your blood pressure up. Before chatbots, most popular content, even in the better subreddits were, essentially, ragebait.
Do your blood pressure a favor and stop going to reddit. HN is okay because it's slower paced and, typically, ragebait is discouraged here.
Individually, AI helps me to be more productive. But, as you point out, at society level makes everybody less productive. So, I have no incentive to stop. Nobody has. Only if we all agree to stop using it then it works. A tragedy of the commons problem.
It's either a vague blanket "ban on AI" that wraps up all dev work in red tape, or it's shutting down specific businesses like OpenAI and Anthropic while letting Google and Microsoft continue to dominate.
Oh wait
Maybe it would be fair to say "you can't just ban something." For example, tobacco-sales are restricted to minors in the US. And smoking among minors did drop sharply (until vapes came along). There were several controls used: outlawing sales, raising overall prices (so that teens generally couldn't afford to smoke), education campaigns, and making smoking more difficult in general.
In contrast, the War on Drugs mostly involved incarcerating vulnerable drug-users. Some similarities to the current war on immigrants.
I think a tobacco-style attempt to ban AI would look like: - A large electricity surcharge to inference-providers, who would pass the cost to customers, making AI far more expensive. Maybe it would be worthwhile to drop $10M/year on code-assistance or slide-deck clip-art, but not for an individual to ask how to restore their Instagram account. - An education program telling people that they sound cringe when they write in AI voice, and which contexts it's appropriate/inappropriate to do that. (Don't AI your wedding vows.) - Certain types of harm would be the responsibility of the provider. Maybe if the AI medical assistant fills out the form incorrectly then the provider is liable for the malpractice suit. Or if it tells a teen to kill themselves the provider is liable for wrongful-death. These would likely result in the provider trying to cut off access to any of the groups where they couldn't shift liability.
I see comments similar to this about tech issues, and it always reads as if the person is assuming that these illegal tech activities are being done under the jurisdiction of the laws making it illegal. All you need is one jurisdiction that is not under the influence of the country with laws, and you make it impossible to stop these "illegal" activities
Of course presumably chinese models would keep existing and that gets a little weird.
How about AI will show us where we are intentionally underfunding things we have promised people?
Like, if you pay attention to American politician bribery scandals, I think most people come to the conclusion: how fucking cheap are American politicians? They'll take a fucking hamburger to screw over their constituents.
Now I am being spammed with "AI-assessments" which are actually attempts to steal time/effort and train ai agents. This industry is infuriatingly stupid.
Apple famously put "if you run to the press and trash us, it never helps" into their App Store Guidelines for developers, but the only reason they did have to do that is because it's a lie. Running to the press is the only thing that helps, which is why people do it.
Basically every large company has gone all in on AI, and as a result the number of bots has (likely, I have no proof) exploded. Then as a result of that, they crack down on "potential bots" by banning them. Of course, all they care about is what % of bots they cracked down on now what % of real people. Then because they've gone all in on AI, you can't get an actual human to help you... just a bot they trained to always say no.
My current experiences in these arena: - Opened a Meta for Business account to try and buy ads. Immediate lifetime ban before taking even a single action. Most likely thing that looks like a bot? Opening a new account. - Got bot farmed on a Google Ads campaign, delivered definitive proof of it to Google. Never got a real human, just went back and forth with a bot who was told to acknowledge everything I said without admitting fault. End result - no refund, the bot farm still operates, and I have to be super careful when buying Google Ads. - Tried to open an account to post stuff on Reddit, every post gets instantly banned because I don't have enough karma. Try to start posting comments to get karma, same thing. IN fairness, this did eventually start to work - where I could post on certain subreddits and comment in others.
Overall the experience always has the same shape - something super opaque to the end user, no resolution options, and really you are left with no alternatives because every big tech firm is doing this.
So then the same AIs that create the problem recommend you try and get media articles published about it to draw attention to the plights of the real human caused by AI bots.
There was a time that reputation damage could counter valance that. But, nowadays, what the average working calls thinks does not matter because money is not on their side. Most money is in the super-rich pockets, and they are the ones that profit from abusing society. Until that is solved, I see a painful future for any people willing to give their own time for free.
Isn't there customer support for their actual customers, who buy ads?
Just a euphemism for "we have no customer support". In fairness, it's a more helpful suggestion than just a customer support stonewall.
Some companies had employees monitor their company's Stack Overflow tag. I think Stripe did that. I probably benefited from that at least a few times, which, in those moments of need, would have been quite helpful.
People linked you to lmgtfy because they were saying you were lazy or stupid, not because they weren't going to support their products. They hadn't sold you anything.
I have my business email read first by an LLM, I imagine someone who works at a tech-oriented website does too so those emails are basically filtered into a pile anyway.
AI can automate that, no problem.